Diamond section on older DB cheeks

[jake pogg]

Greetings,folks.

If i may pose some questions to this esteemed Hival Mind - what's up with those facets on some older DB's?

They weren't too common...Some possible connection with some of the Maine makers?...This is the sum total that i scrape up in my pea-brain.

Is there a known,or an obvious reason why it wasn't a widespread feature?

I find them appealing,and was also trying to think of any technical reason that this'd be a side-effect of but so far draw a blank.

Does the diamond section ever carry into the inside of eye?

(Would it be advantageous,in (theoretical) new work? Would it make re-hafting more of a chore,creating those well-defined facets? And would the slight loss to volume of wood in tongue(vs ovoid)be a considerable minus?).

Thanks in advance for any and all thoughts on this.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

What do you mean--are you referring to the diamond-shaped eyes that a lot of Maine-made double bit axes had? If so, a lot of it just has to do with the wedge-like shape that was a feature common of Maine-made axes, and the effect of eyes that conformed to heads of that shape essentially being done back-to-back, thus creating the diamond-like form to the eye.

 

[jake pogg]

Right on,thanks,yes,i meant those typical for Maine DB's.

Not sure i get this tho':

and the effect of eyes that conformed to heads of that shape essentially being done back-to-back, thus creating the diamond-like form to the eye.

You mean they liked the angle of convergence of cheeks on single-bits,and carried it into DB's for that reason?
As in the angle itself,or the added mass?
(don't mean to be daft,but all DB's are "back to back" singles...(in a manner of speaking...)

 

[Ernest DuBois]

Would it make re-hafting more of a chore,creating those well-defined facets? And would the slight loss to volume of wood in tongue(vs ovoid)be a considerable minus?).

Sometimes the socket of a classic breitbeil, (also of a similar kreuzaxt), ones made nearer the end of breitbeil times meaning the youngest versions, are somewhat truncated half diamond shape in cross-section. Why, I don't know, prob'ly a by-product of the mysteries of manufacturing them like that and it's beside my point anyway. This ridge in the length on the socket does act as a kind of guide when carving the handle's tung particularly in the case of a socket with a sweep in its length, which I've found helpful and imagine the effect of even a double ridge in the case of a full-on diamond will give an objective reference when fitting the handle. That said, and strictly in the case of your double-bitted, you loose out in the long run by sacrificing, like you say it, a loss of wood and contact surface plus even more-so you loose the dispersion effect from impact during actual use that the tear-drop cross-section provides and this is the beauty of this form of eye. So while I can't say even a thing about why, it's clearly a second-rate solution and rightly has no wide-spread adherence in the instance you bring up. You'd think they'd have been more clued in in a place like Maine.
Also look at the one second from the left, a similar case and it gives a poor grip - handle-to-head - and is ineffective at absorbing blows from impact (less critical in this case given the nature of work, but still, we'd want the best possible wouldn't we).

So, the effect of fitting a handle is in fact the opposite of what you propose, but I'm sure the diamond form makes an inferior mounting.

 

[Ernest DuBois]

On this other aspect of your inquiry

Does the diamond section ever carry into the inside of eye?

I can add this, not because I've any particular insight on the inside of eyes but based solely on the one mentioned above in the picture, such a pronounced diamond form does not persist to much depth within this socket. Well It's not by any stretch much of an equivalency - a tjalbila and an old fashioned double-bitted - but what's possible in the one instance cannot be ruled out in n'tuther.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Right on,thanks,yes,i meant those typical for Maine DB's.

Not sure i get this tho':


You mean they liked the angle of convergence of cheeks on single-bits,and carried it into DB's for that reason?
As in the angle itself,or the added mass?
(don't mean to be daft,but all DB's are "back to back" singles...(in a manner of speaking...)

Yes, the BITS of all DB axes are essentially back-to-back single bits, but the shapes of the eyes are not. That is to say, if you were to compare the form of the front of the eye on a conventional single bit Michigan axe by any run-of-the-mill maker vs. the eye on a double-bit Michigan you'd see that they are not a simple pastiche of two of the same eye shape. The Maine double bits eyes are basically back-to-back Maine-style single bit eyes, and as such converge in a peak in the center rather than being ovoid like from makers outside the region. Does that make sense?

 

[jake pogg]

Yes, the BITS of all DB axes are essentially back-to-back single bits, but the shapes of the eyes are not. That is to say, if you were to compare the form of the front of the eye on a conventional single bit Michigan axe by any run-of-the-mill maker vs. the eye on a double-bit Michigan you'd see that they are not a simple pastiche of two of the same eye shape. The Maine double bits eyes are basically back-to-back Maine-style single bit eyes, and as such converge in a peak in the center rather than being ovoid like from makers outside the region. Does that make sense?

Yes,it makes perfect sense,and i really appreciate the info.

Ernest,thank you as well,very interesting stuff about breitbeil and others.

I seem to be having connection issues,the "quote" and some other functions come and go.

But yes,loosely contemplating a potential project here,and all of the above is really thought-provoking and helpful,thank you.

 

[Ernest DuBois]

Yes, and excuses for any diversion, but can anyone confirm my impression now in light of the interesting claim of FTB and gotten mostly from fashioning the double-bitted's drift-pin, that the eye of the double-bitted is indeed something other than a mirror imaged single bit eye in that place, the doubble-bitted being much slimmed-down - cheek to cheek in comparison.

 

[Square_peg]

What do you mean--are you referring to the diamond-shaped eyes that a lot of Maine-made double bit axes had? If so, a lot of it just has to do with the wedge-like shape that was a feature common of Maine-made axes, and the effect of eyes that conformed to heads of that shape essentially being done back-to-back, thus creating the diamond-like form to the eye.

I agree. I think that's it.